Old and New Growth wood,What makes it old and what makes it new?

[Lawg Dawg]

Maybe count the rings? smiley_bucktooth

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Hi WDH,

Yes, very species dependent.  He would not use stumps near swamps, bog and the like, he said it could through his collected data askew, because a stump or fallen log could be ten thousand years old or older in those conditions.  Water, especially "tannin" water, can be a great preservative for wood.

Hey Okrafarmer,

He took coring samples and some samples also received carbon dating as one of his controls for the study.

Regards,

Jay

[lumberjack48]

I lived about 25 miles from the Lost Forty, i'm about 50 miles from it now. This coming summer i'm going to get over there and get some good pictures.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_016469.pdf

http://vimeo.com/8783430

[Black_Bear]

So I was just wondering how many years does it take to make a tree called Old Growth.

"Old Growth" is generally a relative term and can be whatever the person or entity wants it to be, given the context of the situation.

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Black_Bear,

In the day to day use of the term among different folks that go into the wood's that has become the case.  However, from a scientific and professional foresters standpoint, no.  "Old Growth, " only falls into some very clear parameters, depending on the forest biome it is applied to.

Regards,

Jay

[Holmes]

I always thought old growth means trees that have not been cut since the discovery of America. That is the way I look at it...

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Hi Holmes,

That wouldn't work either, for you can have other events that take down a forest, (i.e. geologic events, climate, disease, fire, etc.)  First Nations people in many regions removed thousands of acres of forest, with fire to promote grazing animals like Bison and Elk.  Those forests have not had "old growth," for thousands of years.

Regards,

jay

[DRB]

Near where I went to school there is a 508 acre preserve of old growth the Estivant Pines.

They are most impressive and to think a lot of the UP once looked like this.

The oldest trees are about 600 years old and the site has not been logged.

Now where I live out west there are many areas with bigger trees but for MI it is pretty impressive.

http://www.thingstodointheup.com/estivantpines/

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Hi DRB,

I can't really tell from the photos if that would be an "old growth" forest, but it sure looks like it.  Thank's for posting that.  I would say for White Pine species the individual trees are "old growth," let see what some of our FF Foresters might say.

Regards,

Jay

[Axe Handle Hound]

I always looked at old growth as meaning a tree or stand of trees that were close to reaching their full age potential.  Different trees have different age potentials so putting a hard number on "old" won't work across the board.  My neighbor had an 80 acre parcel that was dominated by enormous sugar maples with a few other species mixed in. One of the mature maples fell down in a wind storm so the owner cut it up for firewood.  I counted the rings on the stump...250+ years old.  Based on its height and distance to the first branches it likely started its growth in the shade of other trees so the area likely had not been cut or burned prior to it starting out and it reached an uncommon old age, even for a sugar maple.  In my opinion, that tree was old growth.  It and the other multiple trees like it in that parcel were impressive to stand under. 

[Jay C. White Cloud]

We are kind'a brush'n up against the same things now.  "Old Growth Forest," vs. old or mature trees.  You can have a forest that has many tree's that are very old even for it's species, that doesn't make them "old growth," or the forest they grow in.  If folks in general could see a broad range of real "old growth," forests, it would probably make more since to them.  Unfortunately we do not have that many.  I have seen a number of forest around the world that meet that standards for "old growth," forest, and they are magnificent. There are some "hollows," in the Carolina's that have some, but they are remote and very small, some may not even be considered a forest any more.

250 years is very old for some Maples, but in what would be considered an "old growth," forest that had Maples in it, they are just a little past middle age.

[Jeff]

Hartwick Pines is only about 40 miles north of Pig-roast Central  ;D, right off the highway.

Sampling from the website...

Hartwick Pines State Park is the largest state park in Michigan's northern lower peninsula. Fittingly, it also contains the largest stand of virgin white pines remaining in the lower peninsula. Visitors can relax in the Michigan Forest Visitor Center and learn more about Michigan's forests in an exhibit hall that focuses on the history of logging, forestry, and the numerous ways we utilize trees in our daily lives. It also is the main interpretive center for the 3.9 million acre state forest system managed by the DNR—the largest state forest system in the United States. Visitors are also invited to experience the Logging Museum buildings, where you are taken back in time to life in a 1880s logging camp and explore the history of the white pine logging era, when most of Michigan's northern lower peninsula was covered with the huge, majestic trees that still can be seen here.  In addition to the virgin pines, the park has a good mixture of other forest types that typically grow on the sandy soils found in this part of Michigan. These habitats include northern hardwood forests (beech and maple), jack pine and oak forests, and lowland conifer forests (cedar, spruce and tamarack). Several small lakes, the East Branch of the Au Sable River and its associated streams and wetlands further add to the diversity that makes this park very attractive to wildlife.

http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/viewingguide/nlp/59hartwick/index.htm

[Okrafarmer]

In my disqualified opinion,  "Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, unthinned, unmanaged, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.

Consequently, old growth trees tend to have narrower growth rings, and more heartwood than new growth or managed trees. They also tend to have been overshadowed as juveniles, causing them to reach for the sky at a young age, leaving a typically tall and straight trunk and no lower limbs upon maturity. If unaffected by disease, their growth rings will be rather consistent in thickness after leaving the center juvenile wood. There will be the differences of good years versus bad years, but little changes over time.

That's my idea of Old Growth. Probably a different idea from anybody else's.

[Axe Handle Hound]

In my disqualified opinion,  "Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, unthinned, unmanaged, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.

Consequently, old growth trees tend to have narrower growth rings, and more heartwood than new growth or managed trees. They also tend to have been overshadowed as juveniles, causing them to reach for the sky at a young age, leaving a typically tall and straight trunk and no lower limbs upon maturity. If unaffected by disease, their growth rings will be rather consistent in thickness after leaving the center juvenile wood. There will be the differences of good years versus bad years, but little changes over time.

That's my idea of Old Growth. Probably a different idea from anybody else's.

You and I appear to be thinking along the same lines Okra. 

Jay- I would agree that "old trees" and "old growth forests" can be two very different things.   It seems logical to me that a old growth tree as defined by Okra hits on a lot of the needs that have to be met to have both.  Would you consider a young tree in an old growth forest to be old growth?   I would consider Cathedral Pines here in Wisconsin to be both old growth forest and old growth trees.  http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Lands/naturalareas/index.asp?SNA=496  How do you see it?

[Ed_K]

I agree with okra,also. There's an old growth hemlock grove/stand here in western ma.thats said to be over 400 yrs it's on the side of a steep mtn, ledge all around which kept roads from being built to harvest it.
If you have an old growth grove,your lucky.Here in new england virtually all the forest were logged in the 1800s,and the new growth was knocked over in 1938 from the hurricane.I hve cut some large w/pine but I think they were 3rd growth as most where 60-75 yrs and only 110' tall.Good growing soil  ;D .
:new_year:

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, un-thinned, un-managed, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle. The tree has to also reach maturity and the size expectancy range of its species to qualify.

Well, I wouldn't call my self an expert by definition. I am well read and follow those that are considered experts, so considering what I have learned, I'd say we have a winner in Okrafarmer's definition.  It is almost too good to call it a lay definition, good going.

Considering among experts there is some deviation, I would say Okarfarmer's take on it is 95% and that's about what you get in the science as well, for understanding these complex biomes.

Great assessment.

Regards,

jay


P.S.  Okarfamer: I just reread what you wrote, and if you came up with that off the "top of your head," I'm truly impressed-great definition.  Jeff should put this somewhere as a flag reference for folks/students that ask this question.  It could be the "Forestry Forum definition of the "Old Growth." I wish I could be that concise when I define things...I use too many big words, too often...

[Jeff]

It could be added to the Forestry Forum Dictionary, to amend the brief description that is in there now, but I'd want some of the Foresters to give it the blessing first.

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Hi Jeff,

That sounds great to me. ;D  I would gladly act as Okarfamer's vetting defender, if he will have me.  That definitions is as close to text book as I have seen.  Someones going to really have to show me their sited literature, to dismiss Okarfamer's understanding of the word.  It's short, it's concise, and he uses common and easy to understand language.  I hope the FF Foresters concur.

Thank's

Jay

[Migal]

 :D I thought the old growth was the part that separate's from the young growth when not dried slowly  8)

[shelbycharger400]

entire forest climax cycle

so that means, it planted itself by seed, grew up to full size?

So this one im playing in again, a 1906 planted Eastern Red cedar stand dosnt qualify as old growth, but the 5 foot dia cottonwood would?  All the boxelder, and Red oak mixed in their is all smallish at 6 to 20 in dia, Whereas their was a few Red oaks at 30 -36 in dia , solid  at the other end of the field with smaller ones around them, in random order.   O and just for the people that wanna know, growth rings on the cedar were hard to see, and about a 1/16th to an 1/8th. 

[Jay C. White Cloud]

I'm not sure I maybe understanding everything you just said and/or asked shelbycharger400, but no, a 1906 stand of Eastern Red Cedar would not by any definition be close to an "old growth, " forest.  (Maybe, for that species, 800 to a thousand years, then that forest they are in would have climaxed and started a new "old growth" cycle.)

The Cottonwood is most likely not old growth either, out of context of it's location, just big.  We have some really mature forest, and well maintained old forest and remnant forest, but very few "apex" forests, (just a different word for "old growth.") Most big trees are just that, big, not ancient which in time some could become like the cedars you describe. If they are left alone to grow to full age, about 800 to 1000 years, then start a new generation, you would be seeing a transition old forest, into apex. 

[JOE.G]

I read quite a bit about how Old Growth wood is better then new growth wood, DO you guys notice that?

[Jay C. White Cloud]

Yes, Joe G. but take into account the details of the source and the species they are referring to.  In Arborvitaes, true Cedars and Cypresses, that could very well be the case, but in many of the hard woods, I would say roughly only about 30 % would benefit from being allowed to mature to anything past there mid life span, and your loss rate would be tremendous not to mention the soil types.

Temples in Japan buy entire forest to protect them for use in there temples repairs and reconstruction and most of the wood in those forest are never touched because, even though they may be "old growth," trees, they are not in the correct soil or the proper location in the forest to form, "good wood," and they will be passed by for a younger tree. Hope that helps a little bit.

Regards,

jay

[CCC4]

So, a stand of dwarfed out 250-300 year old Juniper Cedar, untouched, never thinned and so on would be old growth? What dictates the "climax" tree species? Majority? If a tree drops seed and it grows, is that not starting a new generation? I'm not arguing just asking  ;D

[Jay C. White Cloud]

So, a stand of dwarfed out 250-300 year old Juniper Cedar, untouched, never thinned and so on would be old growth? What dictates the "climax" tree species? Majority? If a tree drops seed and it grows, is that not starting a new generation? I'm not arguing just asking 

Hi CCC4,

Even if you had been arguing,  ;) that would be o.k. too.  We need debate, if it is civil, it's good for the blood.  You asked a good question and it's why this is such a confusing subject. 

A forest can have dominate (climax) species of tree(s) depending on the type and location of the forest.  "Climax," doesn't just describes the specie(s) it describes the state of the cycle the forest has achieved, as Okrafarmer stated it.

Old growth" means a tree that is a climax species for its area, and grew up in a section of forest that was unmolested, un-thinned, un-managed, untouched by humans or by natural disaster, for an entire forest climax cycle.

Yes to your second question, when they start a new generation in succession with all the other characteristics of an "old growth," forest, it is now reaching a climax cycle.

Regards,

Jay